Well I thought I was doing cool research with epigenetics that will help us generate new organs for people and help cure cancer and stuff, but oh well. I guess Jonny Wells knows more about this stuff than me:

Having dismissed efforts to explain development from a purely genomic perspective, Wells then claimed that epigenetics is a neo-Darwinian concept because it is genic, and rejected that as well.

Hmm-- This doesnt seem right. Epigenetics is something Creationists *love* to exploit. Its new (well, to us, not new to life), most people dont totally understand what epigenetics is, so its a perfect gap to cram a god into. I googled a bit to try to figure out what Wells deal is with epigenetics, and found 'Icons of Evolution' on Google books:

According to the standard explanation, cells differ because the genes are differentially turned on or off. Cells in one part of the embryo turn on some genes, while cells in another part turn on others. This certainly happens, as we saw in the case of Ultrabithorax. But it doesnt resolve the paradox, because it means that genes are being turned on or off by factors outside themselves. In other words, control rests with something beyond the genes-- something "epigenetic."

See! Epigenetics is 'beyond the genes' *cue Handels Messiah* If we are created in Gods image, God is a deacetylated histone! Hurray! But wait-- theres more!

This does not imply that mystical forces are at work, but only that genes are being regulated by cellular factors outside the DNA.

Many biologists during the first half of the twentieth century investigates epigenetic factors in their attempts to understand embryo development, but the factors proved elusive. As the neoDarwinian synthesis of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution rose to prominence between the two World Wars, biologists studying epigenesis were increasingly marginalized.

11 comments:

Oh it's ok. I've been impossible for 28 years now, and I'm still here! Must be nice to live as an impossibility. Actually, Richard Dawkins also has something to say about impossibilities (sort of) here. ;-)

Perhaps you should pray on it. Let the same big sky daddy that controls the growth of every embryo decide if he wants you to horn in on his racket. Just beware of the idea that the big sky daddy is tired of growing every embryo and is willing to let you take over. Can you say "Atlas"?

Okay, these Disco Creos are nervous about epigenetics? They seem to see it as either as friendly godly dog, or a dangerous, Darwinist wolf.

Funny, they don't seem to think very deeply, either that, or more likely simply express themselves in shallow lies to dupe their more innocent (ignorant) fundy followers.

For instance. Jonathan Wells says:

"But it doesnt resolve the paradox, because it means that genes are being turned on or off by factors outside themselves. In other words, control rests with something beyond the genes-- something 'epigenetic.'"

Paradox? Why can't Wells see (and admit) that genes interact with proteins outside the genome and can, through them, program the turning on or off of other genes, depending upon the developmental environment of the cell? (I may be wrong about this, but I'll bet I'm closer than Wells statements are to the facts.)

But clearly Wells knows this. Unlike me, Wells has a goddamn PhD in Biology, thanks to money from Rev. Moon! Moon financed Wells' PhD at Berkeley just so he could use that sheepskin to attack science. Wells has admitted as much. That makes him a professional pious fraud, who wasted a seat at a great university under false pretenses, and who deserves nothing but scorn both from real scientists and from the public in my state, who helped finance his education at a state school.

At least Wells is addressing the issue. Most ID types I've encountered don't even acknowledge the discrepancy between the argument that increasing complexity necessarily means evolution can't happen through natural processes and the fact that we know development happens. Wells seems to be saying that development requires God. Like I say, he's wrong, but at least he recognises it's a problem for ID.